[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: ebXML Requirements - Jan. 28 Minutes
> <<ebxml-ReqGrp-Telcon-012800.doc>> ---------------------------------- Text version below --------------------------------- 01/28/00 UN/CEFACT - OASIS ebXML ebXML Requirements Group Teleconference 01-28-00 Summary Report Chair: Mike Rawlins (972) 783-9573 Secty: Tom Warner (314) 232-0615 Editor : Mark Crawford (703) 917-7177 Attendees / Members: e-mail Attended 1/28/00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Mike Rawlins, Team Leader rawlins@metronet.com Y Tom Warner, Secretary thomas.warner@boeing.com Y Mark Crawford, Editor mcrawford@lmi.org Y Jon Bosak bosak@eng.sun.com Tim Cochran tcochran@disa.org Turochas Fuad turochas.fuad@sun.com Kenji Itoh kenji41@attglobal.net Scott Hinkelman srh@us.ibm.com Y Doug Hopeman hopeman@xmls.com Ravi Kacker rkacker@kraft.com Jean Kubler jean.kubler@unece.org Y Kim Lambert klambert@air-transport.org Y Kit Lueder kit@mitre.org Murray Maloney Murray@muzmo.com Y Marcia McLure marcia.mclure@mmiec.com Y Norbert Mikula norbert@datachannel.com Y Garret Minakawa gminakaw@us.oracle.com Dwayne Nickull ? Kathleen Tyson-Quah jtq@granularity.co.uk Don Rudie rudied@dnb.com Y David Webber drrwebber@acm.org Y Erik J. Leckner eleckner@seagate.com Dave Hollander dmh@commerce.net Bob Haugen ? Y Agenda : 1) Roll call, introduction of new participants 2) Approval of Agenda 3) Approval, corrections to minutes from 1/20 4) Miscellaneous updates on logistics and other activities 5) Begin discussion of draft Requirements Specification 6) Preliminary planning for Orlando meeting. Roll Call: Bob Haugen, a newcomer monitoring the teleconference Agenda: Mike R. swapped items 5 and 6 Kim L - requested add of Steering Committee - meeting update Jean K. requested having team teleconference on 2nd for status - Mike R. will investigate Minutes: Jan 20th minutes Approved Miscellaneous: Steering Committee Update: Mike R. - Lots of topics 1. Brussels is the next full ebXML meeting. No hotel determined yet. Meeting venue is the European Commission HQ. No conference fee. 2. Steering committee - discussing using "DOCBOOK" (XML documentation) for ebXML documentation. * Reason is that OASIS uses DOCBOOK for DTDs and Style Sheets in SGML. * There will be a DOCBOOK Tutorial in Orlando at 1830 on the 2nd. * Group discussion followed about pro's and con's of DOCBOOK : Mike R. "We will sort it out in Orlando". Final document form is not yet confirmed. * Mark C. - Will determine the format for our requirements and let the steering committee "help" with any necessary conversions afterward. 3. Procedures and Policy Statement: A one page document was issued by Klaus Naujok this week giving very abbreviated organizational directions. * Anyone can join anything at any time by simply requesting to do so. * Virtual membership in any project team is achieved by Listserve participation. * Project team officers are the Team Leader and the Editor. There is no official position of Secretary...(I will continue recording meeting minutes in an unofficial capacity). * Team consensus is determined by the Team Leader and the Editor. * Consensus is defined as " A majority agreement characterized by a lack of significant objection" * Group Discussion of Consensus definition: Mike R. - This is too ambiguous. What if 20% violently disagree and will not withdraw their opposition for the sake of achieving a majority vote. Then the steering committee will allow the Team Leader and the Editor to still determine "consensus". There is an appeal process where the opposition can take their case to the Steering Committee or the Executive Committee. Note that the team can still record the minority positions in the deliverable document. Note that the Team Leader and the Editor can appeal to the Steering Committee to overturn a team consensus (if they believe that the vote was "rigged".) * Voting procedures - Mike R. : 1st. Consensus is obtained in the Project Team (PT) before the deliverable is presented to the full ebXML Work Group (WG) 2nd. The ebXML WG will review and send comments back to the PT for final revision 3rd. The PT presents the final deliverable to the ebXML WG for voice vote 4th. If passed, the Executive Committee (EC) makes a recommendation for acceptance to the Steering Committee (SC) 5th. The SC is the final word on the deliverable acceptance based on a 2/3 majority vote of the SC * Group Discussion on Voting "workability": * Murray M. - Can the plenary session vote on any opposing issue? This process will require a lot of trust being put in the Steering Committee leadership (to do the right thing). * Don R. It is intended to be an iterative process and it is expected to work. * Jean K. - International experience has proven that the consensus approach is th only way (to move forward). Dates: For international legibility, the dates used in the PT reports will now contain alpha months. Matrix Use: (see Jan 20 minutes) Mike R. Did not get around to asking the SC for a position on the suggested use of a Matrix to "position" business and functional categories of ebXML "work". He will do it in Orlando Planning Orlando PT Agenda: * Mike R. - Our draft document is a good start but we still need to refine it within the team and with other project teams before we can begin finalizing. Therefore, we will not expect to have a final deliverable until the wrap up session on Friday morning (4th). We will suggest a vote at the Brussels meeting. * Group - discussed best approach for the week's work. Provide an advance copy of our draft document to all the project teams ASAP. Include caveats about the draft nature of the documents. (Expect everyone will be thrilled with advance notice and the amount of effort that has been put into the document. ) Project Team Leaders already have an e-copy. We will plan to have a final e-copy of our deliverable for everyone on the 4th. * Mike R. - Monday PM and Friday are the plenary sessions. Project Team Leaders will all meet at Lunch on the 1st. * Tuesday - Blocked off all day for our PT document review * Wednesday - Need to complete all Project Team Joint Sessions in one day...may slop over to Thursday but suggested running late Wednesday to avoid this. * Thursday - Need all day for our PT finalizing of document. * Group - discussion of joint session needs - Suggested that each Project Team be requested to give us a "bulleted" list for a "Heads up" (of their requirements / issues). Our PT attempted to predict the amount of time needed for each of the other PTs joint session...but the prediction results were not conclusive. "Business Processes PT have minimal requirements and lack firm direction (vagueness)...this could mean they need more or less time". The Transport Team has a lot of detail posted to their work web site...this could indicate the need for more joint time". "The Marketing and the Core Components PTs are more important and therefore should get more of our time". "The Registry and the Repository Group is not just looking at the repository support requirements but is looking at "everything"...we should spend some extra time with them." "Consortiums have generally done much of the Core Component PTs work for them...maybe we do not need too much time for them." Logistics: * Mike R. - Printer availability is still being determined. PT leaders may have to do their own printing at their expense. So expect to do much e-distribution of documents. Our group thinks that paper documents are critical for proper review process next week. * Power-strips - We have only 2 so bring your own extension cords * E-mail - We hope to be e-mail connected to the virtual teammates (Rawlins and Warner have e-mail) Document Review Process in Orlando: Group discussion- * We cant change anything in the document but can we set the tone for the work ahead.. * Mark C. - There are still some conflicts in the various sections and we have to better identify those conflicts. Request that all PT members review the document and identify the parts that they have problems with in order to have them ready for the Tuesday team meeting. * Mark C. - Will attempt to extract all the issues to a separate work document for Tuesday session. * Murray M . - Suggested the issues / conflicts be categorized into "gross level issues", "conflicts" and "micro issues". Please include the identity of the issue submitter if possible. Logic: Issue submitters are expected to champion their submittals. An issue may die for lack of a champion. * Mark C. - Asked for any additional issues to be submitted to him ASAP. Mark will include them with existing issues for the Tuesday effort. He will try to identify submitter but have probably lost some ID's of original submitters. Documents Format Discussion: * Mike R. - 1st priority is that all the PT members understand the documents. So we will walk through it on Tuesday morning. After that we should be able to (proceed) * Don R. - Format is confusing - Can't distinguish which of the content is the ebXML initiative itself and what is the actual content of our Requirements Document. Cant we separate the two? Agreed! * Mike R. - Are there any particular sections that are unclear? * Jean K. Section 2.2 - Functional Issues: Difficult for an outsider to understand. Can we add some rationale? * Mark C. Sect 2.2 came from the original group contribution papers. Can't remember who submitted? I have problems with sections 3 and 4. They were from another PT to Mike R. * Mike R. - "The Document Format attempts to focus on ebXML environment characteristics." Section 2 is high level requirements and Section 3 is detail requirements . Section 4 is the Expected Guidelines for the expected working environment. It is true that these are hard to identify. The other PTs just combined all of their information together (and we copied it as we received it.) Where we had detail submittals from the other PTs we did not attempt to produce the "higher level" requirements from them. * Mark C. - We need to discuss form and structure of the documents on Tuesday. * Mark C. - How do we want to incorporate new requirements from other groups? How do we cooperate and capture the other PTs requirements and still (manage) our own general requirements? * David W. - Consider using an addendum for pieces that are "of further consideration". * Mike R. - We don't know how much of a problem this will be. This should get clarified ion the plenary session. * Mark C. - We are at about the right level of detail in our document now for our PT needs. Now we need to get to the right level of detail that the (ebXML WG) will buy off. Preliminary Team Review: * Mark C. - Please look at the document this week end and mark it up in Word Document Revision Mode if possible. Submit directly to Mark ASAP for a Monday evening final listing. Next Meetings: * Jan. 31 - Feb 4, 2000 - Orlando - Full ebXML Meeting * May 8-12, 2000 - Brussels - Full ebXML Meeting * Aug. 07- 11, 2000 - USA ( TBD) - Full ebXML Meeting Nov. 06-10
ebxml-ReqGrp-Telcon-012800.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC